For my daughter's hand, 200 foreskins.

2 posts

Contributor 23

So I was reading the bible a few months back, as one is wont to do in trying to understand the world. Long story short, Saul made David an army commander after defeating Goliath, and he went and slew a whole bunch of philistines and brought 200 of their foreskins back, seemingly as a medium of exchange for Sauls daughter's hand in marriage.
Why foreskins, tho? Lopping off the foreskin of over 200 vanquished enemies is a rather exacting procedure as far as proof of death goes, and not likely to be undertaken in the heat of battle. Post mortem circumcision of the battlefield slain I also rule out, as that would show a lack of sportsmanship and an irreverence to the stipulations of this strange deal of Sauls. Therefore they've must have been captives. Your foreskin or your life.

Now, the mortification of the flesh is nothing new to man. Assuming the theory of evolution to be true, deliberate self destruction may have been what set us apart from the animal kingdom well before we even developed vocal cords capable of intelligble speech.
I mean that not in the way of a wolf stuck in a trap that may gnaw its own leg off, nor a female animal that faces down insurmountable odds in the defence of its offspring, but for some abstract notion.

Bullet ant lined gloves, scarification and other rites of passage spring to mind as later variations, but I feel lukewarm to the prospect that 200 captives were converted instead of being put to the sword or simply enslaved which seems a much better bargain than 200 foreskins, unless they were some sort of a delicacy or a sought after fashion item. I for one would fear a king clad in a mantle made from the foreskins of his enemies. Maybe the king demanded penises but I can imagine that as being rather offputting to prospective converts, and thus edited out as a minor surgery common to these proto-christians. Terror tactics, in short.

Now, I am of the opinion that sex is the basis of all social arrangements. The regulation of who would enjoy the privilege of reproduction, when, how and why, was no doubt the most important facet of a communal existence of a group of humans in prehistoric times, and the system adopted which best addressed, in reproductive terms, the rigours of life in prehistory would dictate the success of the first pre-societies, tribes and their transition to something else.

This brings me to an idea of mine, no doubt totally unoriginal, but in no way palatable to the modern to entertain, which is why I have never heard it spoken of and whenever I've tried to introduce it to drunken conversation, the only response has been that rabbit/brightlights look.

So this idea which somehow germinated in my mind, has to do with the penis and its mechanics; thanks to Saul. Bear with me. The penis of most mammals consists of a shaft, topped with a gland the manipulation of which results in the secretion of sperm. This organ is encased in skin, for protection. In case of the horse, the elephant, the cat, etc. this skin kind of encases the penis within the body of the animal. It is fairly obvious, a horse or an elephant would find it problematic to move at great speeds with a penis swinging all over the place. It is my contention that that the penis of most mammals enter the vagina sans foreskin. After googling mammal penes for a couple hours I decided that this was probably a correct assertion and a waste of my life. However, the human foreskin does enter the vagina during coitus, and I have drawn the conclusion that the foreskin may have a complementary function, by which it engages the vagina such a way as to scoop out semen from other competing males, possibly a during an evolutionary critical period in our prehistory. Considers the mechanics of it.

If so, the dismemberement of this prospective organ would hinder competition during estrus. The first social contract or something else entirely? There is undubitably a great significance to this. It's biblical, after all.



I don't spend much time thinking about dicks.